Offended is not an answer, except that it almost always is
Friday, March 15, 2013 at 10:22am 23 Comments
Ann Coulter makes that point about DiFi’s response to Ted Cruz, which we featured yesterday.
I agree in theory, because Offended should not be an acceptable answer.
But, Offended is accepted as an answer virtually everywhere, particularly on campuses, unless the person offended is a religious Christian, in which case Offended is both the goal of the question and one of the few instances in which Offended is not an acceptable answer.
Video via Common Cents:
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
I think it was Milton Friedman who taught me that “sincerity is one of the most over-rated of virtues.”
I know really horrible people who are quite as sincere as DiFi. Well, and vise versa…
Puuuurrr old moonbat Di was caught flat-footed by a really cogent question, and she HATED it bad!
I’m sure if today’s American Leftists could ask Stalin, or Hitler, or any of dozens of murdering dictators……those dictators would all honestly answer they were very sincere in murdering those they did.
“Sincere” doesn’t mean SQAUT!
It is a false-flag operation word,
the same as “Fair” is alway used by scoundrels* to mask their real intentions!
1. villain: a dishonorable or unprincipled person
Synonyms: crook, …..villain, rat, cheat
As a citizen, I’m offended that Feinstein won’t . . . or can’t . . . answer simple questions about how bills she supports conform to the constitution that she swore an oath to uphold and defend.
Spot on, Professor.
All that was missing was for DiFi to invoke BaBox and moan that she’d “worked so hard” to get her title.
They become “victims” mighty easily those Liberal women. Cruz was respective throughout his questioning. DiFi’s mad because she looked like what she really is, not as smart as she thinks she is.
Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio are the future of the GOP…they have the courage to stand up and say what they believe…unlike the leadership of the GOP that merely goes along to get along, so the pork is evenly spread around…
At this point in the gun debate madam Senator, what the hell difference does it make that you are offended? (sarcasm)
The question over the constitutionality of DiFi’s gun grab is the first question that should be asked of every piece of legislation that is introduced.
1. Is it constitutional
2. What is the cost
3. What will it accomplish
Instead we have so-called lawmakers who throw a hissy fit when the Constitution is even mentioned.
So while DiFi wants to “exempt/prohibit” over two thousand weapons the DOJ wants to start using drones on Americans.
Dick “sack-of” Durbin wants to invite into our country illegal immigrants by the bus load, some of them being enemy combatants.
And, an American pastor – a Christian – is in jail in Iran while the state dept ignores the situation Benghazi style.
What about the slaughter of our Ambassador and those around him, DiFi? Where’s the outrage?
1. Logic chopping vs. emotionalism. Afaic neither Cruz nor Feinstein showed to advantage. I expected better from Cruz.
Possibly Senate Democrats are developing (Michael) “Jordan rules” to neutralize him.
2. Coulter was her reliable self, throwing red meat to the rabid Right—and helping to keep wavering Democrats in the fold.
red meat to the rabid Right—and helping to keep wavering Democrats in the fold.
odd. the only time I see this phrase is when liberals use it against me.
but being rabid I probably am too stupid to understand your implications.
I have no idea what you are trying to say, your post is so obscure.
Unfortunately this is not a good time for me to clarify in depth, but:
1. Early in Michael Jordan’s career he tried to win games single-handed. The “Jordan rules” were tactics developed by opposing teams to neutralize him; with that done, since the Bulls were overly relying on Jordan’s immense talents, they became beatable.
2. Re Coulter: There is money to be made, on Left and Right, by keeping people in a condition of, in your pithy phrase, “managed hysteria”.
1. Often, when you have a player showing some fire, the team is sparked.
2. Who are you suggesting is “hysterical” WRT this exchange?
Feinstein: We’re not prohibiting (banning) anything, we’re exempting..
Bloomberg: We’re not banning anything…we’re using portion control
Everything, in their words, based in “needs”.
Listen to the chatter from the left, listen for the word “need”. They no longer feel the need to cloak one of their favorite Marxism…ism.
Also listen for the word “crucial”.
Cruz should have rephrased the question after DiFi’s ridiculous response.
“So is it then your position that if we allow 3000 acceptable things to say, that we could prohibit everything else under the 1st Amendment on the grounds that ‘no one needs to say more’ than the allowed phrases?”
People need to watch that. Cruz KNOWS Heller. Cruz was one of the people who won Heller. DiFi, you’re no Heller (true on several levels…HEH!)
Coulter is now 10% redeemed from my slist for aiding and abetting the 2012 election mess.
[…] » Offended is not an answer, except that it almost always is – Le·gal In·s… […]
Trust me, Ms. Feinstein, nobody would ever mistake you for a sixth-grader.
However, if I had to make a guess, the number twelve does come to mind – it does appear you died twelve years ago.
Thanks for the Hat Tip. This may interest you as well…
South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley introduces Mitt Romney at the 2013 CPAC Convention.
RE: “…. unless the person offended is a religious Christian, in which case Offended is both the goal of the question and one of the few instances in which Offended is not an acceptable answer.”
Such insight! Well stated Professor, succinct and accurate.
It’s really good for Christians to be opposed like this, as per Romans 8:29. Christ did ALL things well, and all he got was a cross! Certainly not the reward we as men expect for doing ‘good’ works, eh? Perhaps opposition is one of the greatest factors that has caused the Church to grow – just look at China after Mao’s Cultural Revolution, or Ethiopia after Mussolini’s attacks in the late 1930s; immense vitality and growth.